posted at 9:31 pm on January 23, 2013 by Mary Katharine Ham

I have friends who have referred to their abortions in terms of “scraping out a bunch of cells” and then a few years later were exultant over the pregnancies that they unhesitatingly described in terms of “the baby” and “this kid.” I know women who have been relieved at their abortions and grieved over their miscarriages. Why can’t we agree that how they felt about their pregnancies was vastly different, but that it’s pretty silly to pretend that what was growing inside of them wasn’t the same? Fetuses aren’t selective like that. They don’t qualify as human life only if they’re intended to be born.

When we try to act like a pregnancy doesn’t involve human life, we wind up drawing stupid semantic lines in the sand: first trimester abortion vs. second trimester vs. late term, dancing around the issue trying to decide if there’s a single magic moment when a fetus becomes a person. Are you human only when you’re born? Only when you’re viable outside of the womb? Are you less of a human life when you look like a tadpole than when you can suck on your thumb?

This was the exact thought process that led me to the exact opposite position. I, too, noticed a distinction between how women approached an in-utero child when they wanted the child and how they felt about it when the pregnancy was unexpected and unwanted. Logically, it made no sense to me that the mother’s disposition should change the biological disposition of the baby. Therefore, it made no sense that it should change the ethics of the situation.

But Mary Elizabeth Williams goes a whole different direction, encouraging the pro-choice side to embrace the possibility that life begins at conception, which she imagines will allow them to gain some kind of lost rhetorical ground:

Of all the diabolically clever moves the anti-choice lobby has ever pulled, surely one of the greatest has been its consistent co-opting of the word “life.” Life! Who wants to argue with that? Who wants be on the side of … not-life? That’s why the language of those who support abortion has for so long been carefully couched in other terms. While opponents of abortion eagerly describe themselves as “pro-life,” the rest of us have had to scramble around with not nearly as big-ticket words like “choice” and “reproductive freedom.” The “life” conversation is often too thorny to even broach. Yet I know that throughout my own pregnancies, I never wavered for a moment in the belief that I was carrying a human life inside of me. I believe that’s what a fetus is: a human life. And that doesn’t make me one iota less solidly pro-choice.

On one hand, I truly appreciate her honesty— both for its boldness in its literal brutality and in the same way I wish gun-control advocates would just say they want to ban all guns if they want to ban guns. Then at least we’re having an honest conversation. There’s a reason the pro-choice movement must euphemize itself to within an inch of its life— because many people don’t want to be on the side of not-life. In any other article, I’d assume “not-life” is a term meant to mock what pro-lifers believe of pro-choicers, but Williams offers such a clear argument on behalf of an actual not-life position, I’m not sure. At any rate, Williams dispenses with the euphemism, and gives us a look at a very different kind of pro-choice message— like an Honest Movie Trailer for left-leaning politicians. “So, abortion ends a life. So what? There are a lot of lives that aren’t very important.”

Speaking of drawing “stupid semantic lines” and “trying to decide if there’s a single magic moment when a fetus becomes a person,” doesn’t this position just require Williams to draw even more untenable lines where a life becomes important enough to save? That’s the argument Katrina Trinko makes:

By this same logic, isn’t infanticide also fine and dandy? After all, if we’re talking about autonomy, kids aren’t exactly independent as soon as they are born. No infant can take care of themselves. And even later on in childhood, children rely heavily on the adults in their life to provide shelter, food, and emotional support. What about kids and adults who become disabled in life? What about quadriplegics? They’re not going to be able to take care of themselves. Is it okay if we just off the lot of them? Heck, what about needy friends who seem to be falling apart unless we talk to them regularly and console them? Okay to just shoot a couple of them so that we don’t have the burden? Should we ship the grandparents that spent all their money and are now financially dependent on us to the local executioner?

Yes, if the fetus is a life — and a human being — and not a clump of cells, that makes a huge difference. No one would ask a woman to respect the rights of a clump of cells. But it is valid to ask her, difficult as it is to have an unwanted pregnancy, to realize that the death of the child — the child who was totally innocent and has done nothing except be conceived — is not an appropriate way to handle this.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Comments

Cite your made up stat you sick evil bastard. Better yet, prove that you believe what you’re saying and go hang yourself. If you don’t do it clearly you value your life JUST AS EVERYONE ELSE VALUES THEIRS. Unfortunately you get to breath today, you don’t deserve it. But the world will be a much better place when your evil life is over.

Flange on January 24, 2013 at 8:57 AM

Well my source for the Down’s syndrome abortion stat was no other than Rick Santorum:

If you read the article, you notice that Politifact rates Santorums claim as half-true, because it may be a slight overstatement. However, if you look at the Wikipedia, you’ll see that the 90% number is consistent with Down’s Syndrome abortion rate in the UK.

I noticed that you opted to demonize me as an argument. Funny thing is that I’m a warm friendly person, polite to others, and kind to animals. Perhaps you should consider that some people who disagree with you are good people.

I noticed that you opted to demonize me as an argument. Funny thing is that I’m a warm friendly person, polite to others, and kind to animals. Perhaps you should consider that some people who disagree with you are good people.

thuja on January 24, 2013 at 9:26 AM

A common thread in the discovery of sociopathy seems to be a raft of friends, family members, and associates who say stuff along the lines of, “He/she was so soft-spoken and quiet. I never would have thought him/her to be capable of such behavior.”

You’re not being demonized. You’re being called out. You are proud of your embrace and encouragement of death. Is that a fair assessment of your position? Because if it is, you and I have a difference of opinion over a gap we’ll never be able to bridge.

The way she breezily makes the statement that the fetus has no rights outside the mother’s blessing of such is what minds who do not see life as a creation and blessing hold.

The only thing different from this author and Ted Bundy or John Wayne Gacy is that their evil was manifest in physical acts.

I’ve changed some of her words here:

“A Jew can be a human life without having the same rights as a German Officer in my SS. But I’m the boss. Their lives and what is right for my circumstances and goals automatically trump the rights of the Jew”

I noticed that you opted to demonize me as an argument. Funny thing is that I’m a warm friendly person, polite to others, and kind to animals. Perhaps you should consider that some people who disagree with you are good people.

thuja on January 24, 2013 at 9:26 AM

Funny response. It’s not that we disagree, but your views toward life that makes you a bad person. Being a warm friendly person who is polite means you have good MANNERS, it does not make you a good person. The fact that you advocate killing innocent, defenseless children makes you evil. You say I demonize you as an argument, I say you demonized yourself long before I ever responded to you.

Of all the diabolically clever moves the anti-choice lobby has ever pulled, surely one of the greatest has been its consistent co-opting of the word “life.”

It’s ironic that she chastises the “anti-choice” lobby for its appeal to euphemism in the first place (and doing so by blatantly abusing the power of her own applied euphemism). But then it seems doubly so, when she goes on to concede that calling themselves “pro-life” really isn’t all that euphemistic after all.

If you read the article, you notice that Politifact rates Santorums claim as half-true, because it may be a slight overstatement. However, if you look at the Wikipedia, you’ll see that the 90% number is consistent with Down’s Syndrome abortion rate in the UK.

thuja on January 24, 2013 at 9:26 AM

.
Further down, in the PolitiFact article:
.

In a joint statement, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and other groups cautioned against generalizing about national patterns from a series of smaller, local studies.

“No current, comprehensive estimate of the number of pregnancy terminations following prenatal diagnosis exists,” the statement said. “Several studies reporting older data, studies from single centers and studies from other countries have reflected variation in the number of pregnancies terminated. These studies are frequently cited, but given their limitations, are difficult to generalize to the current population of pregnant women in the United States. Undocumented observations from prenatal genetic counselors in the United States suggest that the rate of termination for prenatally diagnosed Down syndrome may vary across the country. New research is called for to comprehensively explore the uptake of prenatal testing and the outcomes of prenatally diagnosed pregnancies in order to more accurately define how women currently incorporate prenatal testing into their lives.”

ACOG suggested we talk to Mark I. Evans, a physician and president of the Fetal Medicine Foundation of America and a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Mt. Sinai School of Medicine. He emphasized that the percentage can vary significantly based on region and other factors.

“In liberal areas such as New York City, probably 80 to 90 percent of patients with severe abnormalties do choose to terminate when legal to do so,” Evans said. “In conservative areas, the proportion of terminations is much lower, perhaps as little as 10 percent” in some cases.

.
If I’m “misrepresenting” or “out of context” with my copy-pasted portion of the PolitiFact article, speak up.

I noticed that you opted to demonize me as an argument. Funny thing is that I’m a warm friendly person, polite to others, and kind to animals. Perhaps you should consider that some people who disagree with you are good people.

thuja on January 24, 2013 at 9:26 AM

That is a typical response by good people who are faced with those (like you) who embrace death.

Some people are frightened by those scary “eugenicists” until the point they have to decide whether to abort a fetus with Down’s Syndrome. Then 90% of them become eugenicists. As at least 20% of the population of is pro-life, this means when push comes to shove the majority of pro-lifers are eugenicists! Pro-life ideals don’t even work in the the lives of pro-lifers.

thuja on January 24, 2013 at 8:50 AM

The amniocentesis statistic is highly misleading when used to suggest that pro-lifers suddenly abandon their principles when confronted with a Down’s baby.

When my wife was pregnant with our first son, the doctor discussed with us the option for the amniocentesis at the appropriate point in the baby’s development (I think like 18 or 20 weeks or something). When we asked about the nature and purpose of the test, it basically looks for chromosomal abnormalities that indicate an increased risk of having certain genetic deformities. Our discussion further led us to the realization that the only real reason to have a test like this done in advance of the birth was to be a deciding factor in aborting the child.

In other words, the reason the abortion rate is so high among Down’s diagnoses is because people are using amniocentesis to actively check for defects like Down’s with the likely intention of aborting the child. Eugenics.

Given that we had no intention of subjecting our baby to a “mercy killing”, and given that we saw no gain in suffering all the anxiety of dealing with a potential Down’s baby for the entire second half of the pregnancy, we didn’t have the test done at all.

Does your statistic account for people who don’t subject themselves to an amniocentesis at all, because they already intend to keep the baby regardless of circumstance? I’m guessing not.

Yeah. You know, the Carthaginians and a few others will stand up and condemn this generation on That Day, because at least they thought their child sacrifice was required of them by a terrible deity; we can presume they did it unwillingly, to at least a degree, unlike the modern abortionist.

“The amniocentesis statistic is highly misleading when used to suggest that pro-lifers suddenly abandon their principles when confronted with a Down’s baby.”

My wife I are both 42 years old and are about to have our 4th child. We didn’t have that test because no matter what, we will love and cherish our child.

More to the point, our OBGYN, when we asked about the test, asked us, pointedly, why have it. He then stated it won’t matter, for us, if it comes back yea or nea. We nodded our heads yes together and that was that.

What the writer of this opinion piece is saying is that aside from running counter to her religions (she’s Catholic), she doesn’t care about the human life inside her or if other’s don’t care about theirs.

This argument is exactly what Roe v. Wade and the abortion debate has been about all long.

It has never been about whether human life existed in the womb, science proves it does, but about what value we give it!

Some people are frightened by those scary “eugenicists” until the point they have to decide whether to abort a fetus with Down’s Syndrome. Then 90% of them become eugenicists. As at least 20% of the population of is pro-life, this means when push comes to shove the majority of pro-lifers are eugenicists! Pro-life ideals don’t even work in the the lives of pro-lifers.

thuja on January 24, 2013 at 8:50 AM

The amniocentesis statistic is highly misleading when used to suggest that pro-lifers suddenly abandon their principles when confronted with a Down’s baby.

When my wife was pregnant with our first son, the doctor discussed with us the option for the amniocentesis at the appropriate point in the baby’s development (I think like 18 or 20 weeks or something). When we asked about the nature and purpose of the test, it basically looks for chromosomal abnormalities that indicate an increased risk of having certain genetic deformities. Our discussion further led us to the realization that the only real reason to have a test like this done in advance of the birth was to be a deciding factor in aborting the child.

In other words, the reason the abortion rate is so high among Down’s diagnoses is because people are using amniocentesis to actively check for defects like Down’s with the likely intention of aborting the child. Eugenics.

Given that we had no intention of subjecting our baby to a “mercy killing”, and given that we saw no gain in suffering all the anxiety of dealing with a potential Down’s baby for the entire second half of the pregnancy, we didn’t have the test done at all.

Does your statistic account for people who don’t subject themselves to an amniocentesis at all, because they already intend to keep the baby regardless of circumstance? I’m guessing not.

The Schaef on January 24, 2013 at 10:18 AM

I have 4 kids, and I refused an amnio with each and every one. I would never agree to an abortion under any circumstances, and I was not willing to go through the risk of an amnio, no matter how small, for information I didn’t need.

My wife I are both 42 years old and are about to have our 4th child. We didn’t have that test because no matter what, we will love and cherish our child.

More to the point, our OBGYN, when we asked about the test, asked us, pointedly, why have it. He then stated it won’t matter, for us, if it comes back yea or nea. We nodded our heads yes together and that was that.

TexasDude on January 24, 2013 at 10:31 AM

Also, the tests are frequently wrong, dangerous for the child and…totally irrelevant to your situation, and not just because you would never abort. The data were developed with women who were having their first pregnancy at age X. And guess what? The outcomes for 42 year old women having their very first pregnancy and 42 year old women having their 4th are wildly different. But few OBGYNs will tell you that. Ours did.

“The amniocentesis statistic is highly misleading when used to suggest that pro-lifers suddenly abandon their principles when confronted with a Down’s baby.”

My wife I are both 42 years old and are about to have our 4th child. We didn’t have that test because no matter what, we will love and cherish our child.

More to the point, our OBGYN, when we asked about the test, asked us, pointedly, why have it. He then stated it won’t matter, for us, if it comes back yea or nea. We nodded our heads yes together and that was that.

What the writer of this opinion piece is saying is that aside from running counter to her religions (she’s Catholic), she doesn’t care about the human life inside her or if other’s don’t care about theirs.

This argument is exactly what Roe v. Wade and the abortion debate has been about all long.

It has never been about whether human life existed in the womb, science proves it does, but about what value we give it!

TexasDude on January 24, 2013 at 10:31 AM

May God bless and keep your wife,you and your family as you prepare to welcome a new member to your family.

Given that we had no intention of subjecting our baby to a “mercy killing”, and given that we saw no gain in suffering all the anxiety of dealing with a potential Down’s baby for the entire second half of the pregnancy, we didn’t have the test done at all.

Does your statistic account for people who don’t subject themselves to an amniocentesis at all, because they already intend to keep the baby regardless of circumstance? I’m guessing not.

The Schaef on January 24, 2013 at 10:18 AM

Good question! I don’t know the answer to that. I will have to investigate, but this thread will be finished by the time I know the answer. Feel free to ask me again some time.

I retract my claim that a majority of pro-lifers are aborting Downs Syndrome fetuses. I don’t know that it is wrong, but I have no evidence that is correct. There clearly are some pro-lifers who aren’t doing the tests for Downs Syndrome.

I retract my claim that a majority of pro-lifers are aborting Downs Syndrome fetuses. I don’t know that it is wrong, but I have no evidence that is correct. There clearly are some pro-lifers who aren’t doing the tests for Downs Syndrome.

thuja on January 24, 2013 at 11:26 AM

I want to thank The Schaef for showing the flaw in my logic. I wish every bad argument I make were so quickly exposed. It’s the only way to get to good arguments.

I always had my own, weird way of looking at abortion: Yes, it’s taking a life. But only because that life is dependent upon another’s life. To ban abortion is to say that the mother has to give up control of her own life: her career, her health, her education, her social and economic standing may have to be sacrificed for this other life, even if it is without her consent and against her will. That’s not quite slavery, but it is a form of imposed risk and burden I’m not personally willing to demand someone else assume.

Socratease on January 23, 2013 at 11:09 PM

It’s not slavery if you consent to the action that ends in that result, a cause and effect that is common knowledge. The only time your argument has any merit is in cases of rape, where consent to sex doesn’t exist, and then it becomes an issue of “forcing” a woman to carry a rapist’s baby to term. But it’s still a child. THAT is the thorny issue with strong arguments one each side.

But hetero unprotected sex often leads to procreation. DUH. Just as jumping from a plane without a parachute often leads to death. Take precautions, or endure the consequences.

Again, absent rape, I’m not forcing her to be a mother – she ALREADY is. She’s the one that wants the “out”, the dodge from the consequences of her actions. Thus, if SHE thinks the baby is a burden, she can kill it. If not, then it’s a “baby”. Hence, the sociopath mentality inherent in the article.

That’s so cute. Let’s pretend the people who disagree with you are dangerous psychopaths.

thuja on January 23, 2013 at 11:37 PM

Who’s pretending? Do you listen to the things you say?

John the Libertarian on January 23, 2013 at 11:42 PM

Agreed. His writings are a window to his madness.

It’ called lack of empathy – he has none for a developing life. It’s a collection of cells. He’ll come along to expand the definition to other, post-birth individuals later when they become inconvenient. it’s the same mindset that lets a girl drop her just-born child in a toilet, since the kid had no value inside her, why should it magically have value once it drops out? Like her soul is just gonna “switch on”?

This is what happens when you exist in an echo chamber. “I’m A-Ok with killing a fetus, here, let me bend the coat hanger.” Even the most disconnected soul on the street would look sideways at you, even if they agreed with you at some level.

Ok, if I’m a psychopath, let’s remember that the “war on women” nonsense, which is the discrete way to say what I’m saying, helped Obama win re-election. This would mean you are surrounded by psychopaths. In my world, I think most people want to be decent.

And by the way you are obviously a pedophile.

thuja on January 23, 2013 at 11:48 PM

What “War on Women?” Banned maxi pads? A White House that is understaffed with women employees who are paid less? People that don’t want to pay for someone’s else’s rubbers? Not quite at the level of “shooting a girl in the head to stop her from going to school”, huh? “But he refused to pay for my stuff! This is an OUITRAGE!”

And thus you inadvertently prove the point – narcissism, which has “lack of empathy” as a symptom, as well as a lack of self-analysis and a lack of emotional depth, is now taught as an acceptable way to live. A mental disorder elevated to the position of a life style. Love of self-image. The result is “posing” – no real emotion or feeling on an issue, just verbatim repeating of a “position” they should hold, faking humanity, so you fit in and are desired by others. Throw in social media that removes personal interaction, and immediate personal gratification caused by fast-response technology, and we have a country of me-monkeys. Facebook, Iphone, Myspace, etc.

Bear in mind, a lot of people that support things like abortion are not very “informed”. They just follow what is sold as the popular line. Why not take a supporter’s hand and lead them into an abortion procedure? Why not televise it? THEN take a poll and see who’s waiving the flag in support.

Oh, and last I saw, the left is starting to support pedophiles as a “sexual orientation”. Must put you in somewhat of a pickle, huh?

As difficult as the rape issue is, the innocent child should not be deprived of his/her right to life because of the horrendous actions of the rapist.

When a child conceived by rape (which is rare) and is aborted the rapist should be hung. But I tend to think that all rapists should be hung.

davidk on January 24, 2013 at 11:45 AM

I’m not saying I support rape exceptions in abortion cases per se, I’m pointing out that that particular fact pattern is rife with thorny legal, ethical and moral issues that are going to have good points on either side. Can’t imagine it’s “common” situation as lefties claim, but it does happen.

In that case, I see it as a coin flip – I personally believe the kid is a kid, who should not be punished for the circumstances of his/her birth. But I’d be a fool to ignore a woman who was “actually’ raped and resulted in the conception being “forced” by law to carry to term (of course, there are options, like adoption, or as tech progresses, artificial wombs, etc.) So, her conscience and God aside, does the govt. have the right to make that decision for her, for all people, in advance, as a one size fits all? it’s not an easy question, though it is one that we should be discussing, instead of wailing about trumped up “War on Women” b.s.

But when you discount a fetus as a life from the door, and are called a misogynist for even talking about the topic, ya can’t get that far in the debate.

I hope you didn’t take that as mockery of pro- life because it was not. It was a question to those on our side that get far more riled up about Islamic extremists than the mass murder taking place in our own back yard.

I retract my claim that a majority of pro-lifers are aborting Downs Syndrome fetuses. I don’t know that it is wrong, but I have no evidence that is correct. There clearly are some pro-lifers who aren’t doing the tests for Downs Syndrome.

thuja on January 24, 2013 at 11:26 AM

What you were trying to point out is that pro-lifers are hypocrits without any evidence.

I know personally I am not. I was raped as a teen, and luckily pregnancy didn’t result of it- but I had already made a decision that I wouldn’t abort.

And I had the unfortunate privilege of being told incorrectly by a doctor that my son had a congenital condition that could be fatal- and should I wish to abort him; I should. I didn’t and despite having a rough start- he is a normal, intelligent 14 year old.

Abortion in cases of rape or incest or to save the life of the mother is ethical and necessary. ‘Morality’ crusaders are wrong in that regard, if they are absolutists and demand the product of rape be carried to term. We have too many unwanted parentless children as it is.
rayra on January 23, 2013 at 10:50 PM

You are wrong. The people who believe there should be no exception other than the mother’s life is in danger are consistent and correct. All others, who allow any other exception, present a crack to allow pro-aborts to chip away at.

I hope you didn’t take that as mockery of pro- life because it was not. It was a question to those on our side that get far more riled up about Islamic extremists than the mass murder taking place in our own back yard.

iwasbornwithit on January 24, 2013 at 12:06 PM

Not at all. You are exactly correct.

We need to realize, however, that the God’s judgement is severe. It may be that he uses Islam in His judgement against us.

If we are “lucky” all we will have to deal with are the bankruptcies of a marxist tyrant.

You are wrong. The people who believe there should be no exception other than the mother’s life is in danger are consistent and correct. All others, who allow any other exception, present a crack to allow pro-aborts to chip away at.

cptacek on January 24, 2013 at 12:16 PM

I agree. If it is really a clear choice that one or the other will survive the mother’s life is the more valuable especially if other children are present.

But any mother whom I have asked (not in the context of abortion), “Would you sacrifice your life for your child’s?” the answer has been, “Yes.”

The amniocentesis statistic is highly misleading when used to suggest that pro-lifers suddenly abandon their principles when confronted with a Down’s baby.

When my wife was pregnant with our first son, the doctor discussed with us the option for the amniocentesis at the appropriate point in the baby’s development (I think like 18 or 20 weeks or something). When we asked about the nature and purpose of the test, it basically looks for chromosomal abnormalities that indicate an increased risk of having certain genetic deformities. Our discussion further led us to the realization that the only real reason to have a test like this done in advance of the birth was to be a deciding factor in aborting the child.

In other words, the reason the abortion rate is so high among Down’s diagnoses is because people are using amniocentesis to actively check for defects like Down’s with the likely intention of aborting the child. Eugenics.

Given that we had no intention of subjecting our baby to a “mercy killing”, and given that we saw no gain in suffering all the anxiety of dealing with a potential Down’s baby for the entire second half of the pregnancy, we didn’t have the test done at all.

Does your statistic account for people who don’t subject themselves to an amniocentesis at all, because they already intend to keep the baby regardless of circumstance? I’m guessing not.

Cool. My advice is to “preach it”. I have a whole 5-10 presentation I save for situations when the topic comes up. I came up with it in law school when we did the Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood area of cases and refined it over time. I don’t preach, I pose questions and options at first from a “selfish perspective”, and then move toward the “unselfish” and then my own beliefs based on the reasons I have them, and I let people reveal their attitude throughout, to see if a fact changes their take, as it did mine. Then go from there. I either get 1) people that nod and agree 2) people that are quiet and contemplative, as in I gave them something to think about and 3) insane with rage because they can’t counter the argument and I’m not an easily dismissed “bible-banger caveman”.

I swear, a lot of abortion support is based on parroting the “popular line”, and lack of knowledge on the issue. I was that way as a kid until I began dating, and realized that women had a hell of an edge in child issues, and they FLAUNTED it. They reduced men to sperm donors and wallets, and revel in it. At least the law school women did. So, if I wanted the kid, too bad, so sad. But is she carried to term, I had to pay the $ anyway. She had a dodge, a second bite at the apple, and I didn’t. That breaks the selfish kid mindset, and opens ya up to growth on the topic. That motivated me to look deeper into the topic, and boy, was I awakened. And not just “consulting a religious tome” angle, but reading the law, the psychology, the biology, the ethics, etc.

IMO the ethical dilemma under discussion is the value of a single human life. In the not too distant past it was a philosophical maxim of our society and our freedoms that, yes, a single human life has value. Why else would we as a nation have torn ourselves to bits over slavery and civil rights?

As we in this brave new world move away from moral absolutes in all areas of life, it’s harder and harder to get the totally secular individual to understand that abortion is morally equal to refusing to take care of your husband when he has cancer, or refusing to treat your mom’s heart disease. I know other commenters will attempt to put a finer moral point on this than I have, but to me it’s all the same. Either human life has value or it doesn’t, and no amount of mental gymnastics will change the question, and the dilemma it presents to all of us in our thinking and in our daily lives.

Regrettably, we live at a time when some persons do not value all human life. They want to pick and choose which individuals have value. Some have said that only those individuals with “consciousness of self” are human beings. One such writer has followed this deadly logic and concluded that “shocking as it may seem, a newly born infant is not a human being.”

I’ve often wondered how it was possible to square this circle, and the fact that it’s NOT possible (not in any logical way, anyway) is one large factor in what has moved me into the pro-life column. It really boils down to that simple question: Is it a life or isn’t it? If it is, and you end it anyway, then you’ve killed another human being. If you think it’s not, then I guess your conscience is free and clear. But you can’t really have it both ways. I’ve never been pregnant so I don’t know what it’s like. I do have pro-choice friends who have miscarried and grieved terribly. I don’t ask but I often wonder, why is it a big deal? It was just a lump of cells, right? Maybe they are grieving for “what could have been,” I don’t know. All I know is, it seems to based on very twisted and flimsy reasoning. I suspect someday it will collapse in on itself and abortion will go the way of slavery and other archaic practices.

“A Jew can be a human life without having the same rights as a German Officer in my SS. But I’m the boss. Their lives and what is right for my circumstances and goals automatically trump the rights of the Jew”

Always.

See how that works?

Opposite Day on January 23, 2013 at 9:58 PM

A Goyim can be a human life without having the same rights as a Jew. But I’m the boss and their lives and what is right for my circumstances and goals automatically trump the rights of the goyim.

Re: testing, as others have pointed out, the people who get the amnio are the people most likely to abort if they don’t like the results. They’re the ones who want that information so they can use it to “make decisions.” The test is explicitly marketed that way – ask any one who had a baby when they were over a certain age.

I want to thank The Schaef for showing the flaw in my logic. I wish every bad argument I make were so quickly exposed. It’s the only way to get to good arguments.

thuja on January 24, 2013 at 11:32 AM

I had the benefit of direct experience, which in turn prompted other people to verify that mine was not an isolated case.

I didn’t have the benefit of holding so strong a lever to displace the argument where you referred to yourself as warm, friendly and polite to others, just a short while after accusing someone of being a pedophile.

A doctor told a close friend that her baby had severe amniotic band syndrome and would likely be born with terrible deformities and debilitating brain damage and strongly recommended that the baby be aborted. The friend refused to kill her baby.

The baby is now a 24 year old college graduate with an excellent job designing prosthesis. The young women had the lower part of her leg amputated right after she was born. This person is the kind of person who lights up every room they enter. Happy, funny, full of life. A beautiful person in every way. Every member of her family thanks God her parents weren’t pro-abortion liberals.

Many people such as myself–not so mainstream of a conservative–think killing human fetuses not wanted by their mother is morally fine. I want to praise people who help the mother do the killing. I certainly don’t want them murdered or hindered in any way.

thuja on January 23, 2013 at 11:07 PM

Most of the people you’re claiming agree with you call for Safe, Legal, and RARE.

Not “safe, legal, and exceptionally common and praised for their actions”.

Hoping something will be rarely used; but available if need be isn’t the same as singing Hosannas every time a fetus is killed.

It’s like accepting that guns cause some accidental child deaths but not wanting to ban guns; and CHEERING the accidental child deaths when they occur as a GLORIOUS EVENT because guns are still legal.

One is a difference of opinion, one is a morally unconscionable position.

So you keep cheering the death and dismemberment of fetuses and claim lots of people agree with you if you like. But don’t expect me to be surprised when even staunch pro-choice advocates think you’re creepy and disturbing.

I wrote in the comments section of the blogpost about supposed rising percentage of abortion supporter, that the pro-choice crowd would overreach. It started at the Democratic Convention as they dropped the “legal, safe and RARE” mantra for the “proud to have an abortion” sloganeering. Now we have an article written in a well known liberal, oh excuse me, progressive online magazine arguing that a woman’s “right to choose” trumps even a viable human life within the womb. The overreach is now in FULL swing. Let’s not let them forget what this article argues. When people start to recoil, you will see the argument hidden again. We cannot let people forget what Planned Parenthood, NOW and Emily’s List are really arguing for – the right to kill a life if it is inconvenient to a woman. It is feminism gone mad.

Copy the link. Copy the article. Print a hard copy. Send it to people you know and get the word out. Copy it on Twitter. Even the commenters to the Salon article are appalled for the most part. But this is the only logical conclusion of their argument. Especially let your Catholic and Evangelical friends who support abortion see this article. Don’t shove it down anyone’s throat, don’t overreach in your commentary – let it speak for itself. It does – and it speaks loudly of a culture where the whims of a pro-choice woman justifies, under any circumstances, the extermination of a life. Wow. I don’t think Randall Terry could have written a better advertisement for the pro-life position.

Then I suggest considering a quote from the old “Homicide” tv series that still sticks with me – “He who loses control, loses“. When I see the “opposing view” lose their poo 2 minutes into a discussion, I immediately know I “won”, for whatever that’s worth. I may not change that person’s mind, but I may have got through to the other people watching the debate/discussion play out.

And that’s the point – to inform people that only hear the popular line, to break through that monopolization of the topic. You won’t see that done in school or media, so it’s up to us.

The pro-“choice” side is slowly realizing that they are losing hearts and minds of people where babies and life is concerned, so naturally, the next step for them is to normalize death and desensitize people to the killing of babies so that they will also say, “So the fetus is a human, so what?!”
Liberals can rationalize ANY immorality.